Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Endodontic Treatment: Traditional versus Modern Technique

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.051

Journal of Endodontics

Volume 32, Issue 5, May 2006, Pages 412-416

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.051 Get rights and content

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the outcome of surgical endodontic treatment preformed using the traditional versus modern techniques. There were 110 patients who were treated by surgical endodontic treatment between 2000 and 2002 and evaluated from their dental charts. The surgical endodontic treatment was preformed using a traditional or modern technique. The traditional technique included root-end resection with a 45 degrees bevel angle, and retrograde preparation using a carbide round bur. The modern technique included root-end resection with minimal or no bevel, and retrograde preparation using ultrasonic retro-tips with the aid of a dental operating microscope. The retrograde filling material for both techniques was intermediate restorative material. There were 71 patients with 88 treated teeth that were compatible with the inclusion criteria. Complete healing rate for the teeth treated with the modern technique (91.1%) was significantly higher than that for teeth treated using the traditional technique (44.2%) (p < 0.0001). In the traditional technique a significant (p = 0.032) negative influence of the tooth type was found. Modern surgical endodontic treatment using operative microscope and ultrasonic tips significantly improves the outcome of the therapy compared to the traditional technique.

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

There were 110 patients treated by surgical endodontic treatment between 2000 and 2002 that were evaluated from their dental charts. Three oral surgeons and three endodontists performed all treatments. Criteria for inclusion were good quality periapical radiographs, complete data in the dental charts (age, gender, operation technique, tooth type, information whether the previous root canal treatment was primary or retreatment, antibiotic therapy, clinical symptoms), first time surgery cases

Results

The medical records of 71 patients with 88 treated teeth were compatible with the inclusion criteria. From the records, the traditional technique was used in 36 patients (43 teeth) and the modern technique in 35 patients (45 teeth).

Equal distribution was found between the surgical techniques (modern versus traditional) of the follow-up period, gender of patients, quality of coronal restoration or presence of caries, presence of post, nature of orthograde root canal therapy (primary versus

Discussion

The present retrospective study examined the outcome of two surgical endodontic treatment techniques performed by six operators. One of the disadvantages of a retrospective study is the difficulty of standardization of the procedures. However, the oral surgeons who did traditional technique and the endodontists who did the modern technique had similar philosophy and experience that minimized the differences between the groups.

The common retrograde filling material used in the traditional

References (29)

R.K. Allen et al.
A statistical analysis of surgical and nonsurgical endodontic retreatment cases
J Endod
(1989)
R.A. Rubinstein et al.
Short-term observation of the results of endodontic surgery with the use of surgical operation microscope and Super-EBA as root end filling material
J Endod
(1999)
P. Velvart et al.
Soft tissue management in endodontic surgery
J Endod
(2005)
R.A. Rubinstein et al.
Long-term follow-up of cases considered healed one year after apical microsurgery
J Endod
(2002)
J. Danin et al.
Clinical management of nonhealing periradicular pathosis. Surgery versus endodontic retreatment
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(1996)
J. Rud et al.
Radiographic criteria for the assessment of healing after endodontic surgery
Int J Oral Surg
(1972)
O. Molven et al.
Observer strategy and the radiographic classification of healing after endodontic surgery
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(1987)
B. Grung et al.
Periapical surgery in a Norwegian county hospitalfollow-up findings of 477 teeth
J Endod
(1990)
S. Rahbaran et al.
Comparison of clinical outcome of periapical surgery in endodontic and oral surgery units of a teaching dental hospitala retrospective study
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2001)
T. Testori et al.
Success and failure in periradicular surgerya longitudinal retrospective analysis
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(1999)

S.O. Dorn et al.

Retrograde filling materialsa retrospective success-failure study of amalgam, EBA, and IRM

J Endod

(1990)

A.L. Frank et al.

Long-term evaluation of surgically placed amalgam fillings

J Endod

(1992)

O. Molven et al.

Incomplete healing (scar tissue) after periapical surgeryradiographic findings 8 to 12 years after treatment

J Endod

(1996)

E.L. Rapp et al.

An analysis of success and failure of apicoectomies

J Endod

(1991)

Cited by (149)

Outcome of Periapical Surgery in Molars: A Retrospective Analysis of 424 Teeth
2021, Journal of Endodontics
The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of periapical surgery in a large number of molars in order to identify possible variables that might affect the outcome.
The healing outcome of patients undergoing periapical surgery of molars from October 1999 to October 2019 was retrospectively evaluated. Outcome was dichotomized into “healed” and “nonhealed” using well-established clinical and radiographic healing criteria. The potential influence of patient-, tooth-, and treatment-related parameters on the healing outcome was analyzed.
A total of 424 molars in the same number of patients (45.5% male and 54.5% female) were evaluated. Three hundred seventy-two molars were classified as healed (87.7%). Three significant outcome predictors were identified: 1-year follow-up versus >1–5 years, >5–10 years, and >10 years (95.3% vs 82.2%, 76.3%, and 76.5% healed, respectively; P < .0001); root end filling material with bioceramic root repair material versus mineral trioxide aggregate (96.9% vs. 86.3% healed, respectively; P = .001); and preoperative evaluation based on cone-beam computed tomographic imaging versus 2-dimensional radiography (90.2% vs 81.4% healed, respectively; P = .02). Sex, age, tooth location, type of restoration, attachment level, presence of a post, quality of the root canal filling, technique of root end preparation, administration of antibiotics, and type of surgery had no significant impact on the healing outcome.
The healed rate for the concave (Retroplast) and cavity (mineral trioxide aggregate, SuperEBA [Staident International, Staines, UK], and bioceramic root repair material) root end preparation technique over all follow-up periods was 84% and 88.5%, respectively. The follow-up period, root end filling material, and preoperative evaluation based on cone-beam computed tomographic imaging had a significant influence on the healing outcome.
Root-end Surgery or Nonsurgical Retreatment: Are There Differences in Long-term Outcome?
2021, Journal of Endodontics
The decision of which modality of secondary endodontic treatment to perform is multifactorial and clinician dependent. The literature surrounding the long-term survival of nonsurgical retreatment compared with surgical retreatment remains equivocal and warrants further investigation. This 7-year retrospective study seeks to compare the outcome of nonsurgical retreatments with that of root-end surgeries performed on teeth without prior nonsurgical retreatments.
Insurance claims from 1021 teeth of 987 patients in the Delta Dental of Wisconsin database were analyzed from the years 2008–2017. Tooth survival was evaluated using Cox regression models, and the P value was set at .05. Survival time was considered from the time of completion of nonsurgical retreatment or root-end surgery to the time of an untoward event, which was defined as extraction after root-end surgery or extraction/root-end surgery after nonsurgical retreatment. Only procedures performed by endodontists were included in the analysis.
The survival rate of teeth that received nonsurgical retreatment was 90% after 2 years, 86.8% after 4 years, and 85% after 6 years. The survival rate of teeth that received root-end surgery was 93.7% after 2 years, 90.5% after 4 years, and 88% after 6 years. No statistically significant difference was found in the survival of nonsurgical retreatment compared with root-end surgery. Likewise, no statistically significant difference was found within or between tooth types (anterior, premolar, or molar) when comparing nonsurgical retreatment with root-end surgery.
The results of this study indicate that clinicians can choose either nonsurgical retreatment or root-end surgery after failed primary root canal therapy. Tooth location was not a determining factor in the survival rate after nonsurgical retreatment or root-end surgery.
Accuracy of root-end resection using a digital guide in endodontic surgery: An in vitro study
2021, Journal of Dental Sciences
It is difficult to achieve accurate root-end resection clinically. This in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the operation accuracy of a digital endodontic surgical guide.
56 extracted maxillary anterior teeth were prepared for endodontic surgical models. The models were randomly divided into 4 groups equally according to the guide (with guide/no guide) and the operator (experienced/inexperienced). Endodontic microsurgeries were performed on models in each group. The deviations in length and angle of the root-end resection were measured based on the optical scanning data of the pre- and postoperative teeth. The general linear model was performed to analyze the effect of a guide on root-end resection deviation.
Using a guide, the mean length deviation for experienced/inexperienced operators reduced from 0.99 mm (95% CI [confidence interval, CI], 0.66–1.33 mm)/1.18 mm (95% CI, 0.50–1.86 mm) to 0.31 mm (95% CI, 0.20–0.42 mm)/0.31 mm (95% CI, 0.24–0.37 mm). The mean angle deviation for experienced/inexperienced operators reduced from 16.74° (95% CI, 10.61–22.86°)/15.06° (95% CI, 9.19–20.94°) to 5.04° (95% CI, 3.31–6.77°)/6.79° (95% CI, 4.91–8.67°). The difference was significant between procedures performed with and without a guide (P < 0.01).
Application of the digital guide in vitro endodontic surgery could improve the accuracy of root-end resection.
Long-term Follow-up for Apical Microsurgery of Teeth with Core and Post Restorations
2020, Journal of Endodontics
Orthograde retreatment was recommended before apical surgery to achieve high success rates. The aim of this study was to determine the success rates of apicoectomy of core and post-restored teeth without prior root canal retreatment followed for up to 13 years.
Seventy-three patients with 87 teeth with apical periodontitis underwent apical microsurgery from 2004 to 2006 at the Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. After 1.5–5 years and 10–13 years, 85 and 49 teeth, respectively, were followed up by 4 independent, calibrated examiners. Absolute and relative frequencies of the dichotomous outcome (healed vs nonhealed) were analyzed considering patient-, tooth-, and treatment-related factors. The significance of the obtained values was determined with the chi-square and Fisher exact tests.
All of the 85 (100%) investigated teeth were in situ 1.5–5 years after surgery, whereas only 49 of 62 analyzed teeth (79%) remained after 10–13 years. Radiologically documented periapical healing was 97.6% (83/85 teeth) for the first follow-up period but decreased to 75.8% (47/62 teeth) by the second follow-up. Smokers showed significantly worse results after 10–13 years. None of the other investigated potential influencing factors significantly affected results.
This clinical study showed that apical microsurgery on teeth with core and post restoration using Intermediate Restorative Material (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE) as filling material achieves excellent results after 1.5–5 years (97.6%) and still shows good results after 10–13 years (75.8%). Accordingly, it is a reliable alternative to root canal retreatment, eliminating the risk of post removal–related complications.
Outcomes of Regenerative Endodontic Treatment Performed Using Different Magnification Devices: A Systematic Review
2024, Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
The outcome of apical surgery in teeth treated using TotalFill® RRM putty as a root-end filling material during apical surgery: Case report series
2023, Oral Surgery

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Clinical researchRetrospective Evaluation of Surgical Endodontic Treatment: Traditional versus Modern Technique

Abstract

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

J Endod

J Endod

J Endod

J Endod

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

Int J Oral Surg

Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg

J Endod

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

J Endod

J Endod

J Endod

J Endod

Clinical research
Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Endodontic Treatment: Traditional versus Modern Technique